Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI
Arup Kumar Goswami, Ninala Jayasurya, JJ.
Chintha Chinni - Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 8172 of 2021
Decided On : 03-08-2021
ANDHRA PRADESH PREVENTION OF ANTI-SOCIAL AND HAZARDOUS ACTIVITIES ACT, 1980 - SECTION 3 - GOONDA - EXTERNMENT - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION:
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an order passed under Section 3(3)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Anti-Social and Hazardous Activities Act, 1980 (the Act of 1980), directing his externment from the Krishna District for six months. The order was based on seven crimes registered against the petitioner, including murder, assault, and rioting. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without following the mandatory procedure under Section 3 of the Act, that he was not served with a notice, and that he was not given an opportunity to explain or defend himself.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order was not sustainable as the petitioner could not be considered a 'goonda' within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Act of 1980. The court held that the respondent failed to consider the most relevant consideration, namely, whether the petitioner had committed the alleged offenses within the six-month period specified in the explanation to Section 2(e). The court also found that the respondent did not apply his mind to pertinent and proximate matters only, as required by law.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was a 'goonda' within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Act of 1980. 2. Whether the respondent followed the mandatory procedure under Section 3 of the Act. 3. Whether the petitioner was served with a notice and given an opportunity to explain or defend himself.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The definition of 'goonda' under Section 2(e) of the Act of 1980 requires that the person has committed or attempted to commit certain offenses, or has been convicted of certain offenses more than once, or has been found habitually passing indecent remarks to or teasing women or girls, or has been found habitual in intimidation of law-abiding people by acts of violence or show of force, or is habituated to commit affray, breach of peace, riot, or to make forcible collection or subscription, or to threaten people for illegal pecuniary gain, or to cause alarm, danger, or harm to persons or property. 2. Section 3 of the Act of 1980 requires the Commissioner or District Magistrate to issue a notice to the person informing them of the general nature of the material allegations against them and giving them a reasonable opportunity to tender an explanation. 3. The person against whom an order under Section 3 is proposed to be made has the right to consult and be defended by a counsel of their choice and shall be given a reasonable opportunity of examining themselves, if they so desire, and also of examining any other witnesses or any relevant document that they may wish to produce in support of their explanation.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order dated 18.03.2021 passed by respondent No.2 - Collector and District Magistrate, Krishna District, and allowed the writ petition.
JUDGMENT
(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)
Heard Mr. P. Rajasekhar, learned counsel representing Mr. Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Syed Khader Masthan, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
2. This writ petition is filed challenging an order dated 18.03.2021 passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Krishna District, respondent No.2 herein, in purported exercise of power under Section 3(3)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Anti-Social and Hazardous Activities Act, 1980, (for short, ‘the Act of 1980’), ordering externment of the petitioner and directing him to remove himself outside the Krishna District for a period of six months with effect from the date of receipt of the order, so as to prevent him from entering into Krishna District and further directing him to give prior intimation to respondent No.2 before entering into the District for his appearance before Robertsonpet Police Station once in a week till the Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituency and Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency elections are completed and after that, once in a month till the trial is completed, as directed by this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in Crl.P.No.4734 of 2020.
3. The aforesaid order dated 18.03.2021 states that the petitioner was involved in repeated crimes within the limits of Inaguduru Police Station and Robertsonpet Police Station. It also recites that the Superintendent of Police, Krishna, Machilipatnam, had informed respondent No.2- Collector and District Magistrate, Krishna, that the petitioner is a habitual criminal and formed a gang consisting of his associates and followers to terrorize the common public and his movements are hazardous to public peace and tranquillity and that he is creating panic in the town with a view to frighten the witnesses in a recent brutal murder case in which he is the prime accused and that if he was allowed to move freely, there was every likelihood of his indulging in more and more violent activities and there would also be threat to his life from his opponents. It is further noted in the said order that the petitioner is a sordid person and is in the habit of picking up unnecessary quarrels with public over trivial issues to show his highhandedness and does not hesitate to attack them physically for no valid reason and in spite legal action being taken against him, being a rowdy sheeter, he did not try to mend his attitude and continued his rowdy activities in Machilipatnam town.
4. While passing the aforesaid order dated 18.03.2021, respondent No.2-Collector and District Magistrate, Krishna District, relied on seven crimes registered against the petitioner, which are as follows:
1. Crime No.119 of 2014 of Inuguduru Police Station registered for the offences under Sections 341, 427, 324 and 506 r/w 34 I.P.C.
2. Crime No.118 of 2008 of Inuguduru Police Station registered for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 I.P.C.
3. Crime No.123 of 2009 of Inuguduru Police Station registered for the offences under Sections 341 and 506 r/w 34 I.P.C.
4. Crime No.146 of 2015 of Inuguduru Police Station registered for the offences under Sections 506 and 323 r/w 34 I.P.C.
5. Crime No.147 of 2015 of Inuguduru Police Station registered for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 I.P.C.
6. Crime No.192 of 2020 of Robertsonpet Police Station registered for the offences under Sections 120(b), 302 and 109 r/w 34 and 37 I.P.C.
7. Crime No.40 of 2021 of Robertsonpet Police Station registered for the offences under Sections 353 and 506 I.P.C.
5. In the petition, it is averred that the petitioner had contested in the municipal elections of Machilipatnam and he had secured 780 votes, whereas the winning candidate had secured 800 votes. It is pleaded that the impugned order was passed at the behest of the opponents of the petitioner and the respondents had acted in view of political interference exerted upon them. It is alleged that before passing the impugned order, no
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
